You are here

Panacea Care
Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 April 2018

This announced inspection took place on 6 March 2018.

Panacea Care provides personal care and support to people who have mental health needs within a supported living and a domiciliary care setting. People living in a ‘supported living’ setting receive care and support, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living. This inspection we looked at people’s personal care and support people received. At the time of our inspection Panacea Care provided shared accommodation and support to 11 people living in two supported living settings one of which was the address of the registered location.

The domiciliary care service was about providing home care support to people who have mental health needs and/or learning disabilities who are living in the community. At this inspection there were two people using this particular service but none of them were receiving personal care so we did not inspect this aspect of the service.

At our last inspection carried out on the 14 November 2016 we rated the service Good. This had been a focused inspection to check on a breach of Regulation 18, which was met. The previous comprehensive inspection took place on 30 and 31 March 2016. At this inspection on 6 March 2018 we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good.

The owner of the company was also the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The registered manager worked alongside staff on shift so that they could see how the service met people's needs.

People were happy using the service. They felt supported and were developing daily living skills to help them potentially live independently. People had been involved with planning their care and had consented to the support they received.

People’s care records included their needs and preferences. Information had been reviewed on a regular basis to help ensure people’s needs were being met. People had access to the health care services they needed and their nutritional needs were being met.

The risks to people's safety and wellbeing were assessed. People were supported to manage their own safety and remain as independent as they could be. The provider had processes in place for the recording of incidents and accidents.

Staff received training on safeguarding adults from abuse and there were policies and procedures in place to inform staff on what to do if they had a concern about a person’s welfare and safety. There had been no safeguarding incidents.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. Employment checks were in place to obtain information about new staff before they were allowed to support people. People were supported by staff who were sufficiently trained and supervised.

People were given the support they needed with medicines and there were regular audits carried out to help ensure people received their medicines.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People using the service, staff and others were asked for their feedback on the service so that the registered manager could identify what was working well and where improvements needed to be made.

There was a complaints procedure available and people told us they knew how to raise a concern or complaint.

There were checks and regular audits on a range of areas in the service to ensure people received safe good care.

Inspection ratings

We rate most services according to how safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led they are, using four levels:

Outstanding – the service is performing exceptionally well.

Good – the service is performing well and meeting our expectations.

Requires improvement – the service isn't performing as well as it should and we have told the service how it must improve.

Inadequate – the service is performing badly and we've taken enforcement action against the provider of the service.

No rating/under appeal/rating suspended – there are some services which we can’t rate, while some might be under appeal from the provider. Suspended ratings are being reviewed by us and will be published soon.

Ticks and crosses

We don't rate every type of service. For services we haven't rated we use ticks and crosses to show whether we've asked them to take further action or taken enforcement action against them.

There's no need for the service to take further action. If this service has not had a CQC inspection since it registered with us, our judgement may be based on our assessment of declarations and evidence supplied by the service.

The service must make improvements.

At least one standard in this area was not being met when we inspected the service and we have taken enforcement action.